Bush is teaching Labor a lesson!!!!!!!!!

[Timebuilder]

Bush wants to send off of these kids over to Iraq because they tried to kill his dad, but where was he during the Vietnam war? Flying a F4 around stateside. Come on. I can appreciate this was on Terrorism, and indeed Iraq needs a new gov't, but lets not sit up here and say that Bush is some great guy looking out for you and me. Lets keep the Gov't out of Businesses, and let the Enrons and MCIs of the world do their own things, right?

1) I don't think for a New York Minute (usually under three seconds) that this has ANYTHING to do with Saddam trying to killl George's dad. Maybe Woody Harrelson thinks so, but I don't.

2 ) There is nothing wrong with flying an F4 around stateside He had the same likelihood of a forward deployment as anyone else did. In contrast to the previous president, GW did not protest against the policies of the United States while on foreign soil, which to me carries a very unsavory component. GW was serving in an approved manner, like so many others. Some say this is not fair. Time has shown that life cannot be made "fair", and so we must accept some substitute for that quality.

3) People who work for GW have said that he is a great guy, and that he is sincere in looking out for you and me. From the quality of these individuals, I am inclined to take them at their word. If he were permitted to fly on my aircraft, I'd have a good handle on GW from a personal viewpoint, but he is the only person in the White House who is not permitted to ride on a private jet like the one I fly. If I am invited to meet him, I will report back on that meeting.


Gunfyter:

But the problem with Republicans is there is a strain of them who never worked for a living. Country Club Republicans.

People are not THROWAWAYS. Country club republicans don't understand this and that is why they are anti-union.

This sounds dangerously like the old "class warfare" argument used by democrats. It's funny, when you think about it. There are just as many wealthy dems as there are republicans, and most have never "worked" for a living. Never mind the management of a large fortune, such at the Kennedys', is very much like managing a large corporation.

So, whether you are talking about dems, republicans, the head of the red cross, greenpeace, the sierra club, or whomever, you will find many people who have never done pipefitting, auto mechanics, or any number of jobs that are commonly associated with the word "work". While you may find some republicans who are anti-union, you can find many people who are not associated with the republcan party who are also anti-union. It is a mistake to paint the entire republican party with such a broad brush.

If you think that the dems are pro-union, I have a new insight for you: they are pro-union-MONEY. Many forget that the democrat leaders sit on corporate boards as members of MANAGEMENT.

Capitalism is simply the most efficient economic system. The MACHINE of the economy works best under ruthless free trade capitalism.

That's probably correct, but it has never been tried.

The Problem is that the MACHINE of the Economy has component parts called HUMAN BEINGS. It may be cost efficient to run airplanes or factories 24/7 without rest and replace worn parts with new parts and just discard the old.

Actually, we are the machine, the company, the corporation. The very best of these companies view their employees as assets and not liabilities. While a mechanical machine can be worked 24/7, it must receive periodic maintenance, just as a human employee needs sleep and recreation.

I'm not sure why we are addressing this issue in this thread. Are you referring to FAA duty times, the way the regulations are interpreted, or are you saying that people are just forced to work too hard, and for too long?

 

[Timebuilder]

Getting back to the UAL topic: do I remember UAL hiring a new CEO with a $3mil signing bonus along with a $1mil salary plus options and a 100% bonus? Ah, I do. I wonder how all those employees taking pay cuts with the jobloss stress looming feel about that deal.

- Yesterday, in the Jack Welch interview on PBS, this question came up (Of course it came up. The news area of PBS is just as liberal as the programming) and was ably addressed.

Jack pointed out that if you want to hire a new CEO for a UAL or an Enron, you are asking someone who already has a good job somewhere else to leave that job and step into a spotlight in a high stress environment where they will be watched with a microscope by both friends and foes. In order to get people to do this, which is a choice they have to make both personally and professionally, you have to offer some really good compensation.

Let's say that you don't hire a well know, successful CEO, or in this case a vice president of Chevron, and instead happen to hire an accountant from a middle management background, and offer him $300,000? What happens? People see the inexperienced, unknown CEO and jump ship, break contracts, refuse financing....any number of things that would virtually guarantee the failure of the company, instead of its recovery.

While you and I see this level of compensation as exorbitant, it is the cost associated with hiring a CEO for a troubled company. Just as anything that gets attached to an airplane costs ten times what it would cost if it was attached to a car, it costs a lot of money to have the proper individual, as judged by the business community, attached to you company.

 

[hyper]

OK, fair enough. But it still seems exorbitant.

 

[cocknbull]

President Bush is very concerned with the amount of taxes the US citizen pays. It is a shame that the average american family must have both parents working in order to pay the bills. This means more time at work and less time parenting. President Bush is not about to back a failed business model with taxpayers money. Its bad business plain and simple. I feel horible about what has happened to United and I don't want to see any of their pilots suffer. However the industry needs a cleaning. I am sick and tired of people blamming Reagan, Bush, and Bush for the stink in the industry. They did not allow Lorenzo and those fools do what they did. The laws did and writing laws is not the presidents job. If airlines can't function in capitalism then neither should McDonalds, Wal Mart, etc.... Yes I do want to be an airline pilot, but do I want to strike every five years, and ask the government to help. No. Since the airlines have been in exsistance they have made 7 billion in profit, 5 billion of that is bail outs. The airlines can work and can function, but investing in the old system is a waste of money. I think the long term future for United is solid. In fact I think we will see alot of steps in the near future that will return United to profitability in the future. I don't think every pilot group is going to love the changes, but you can't please everyone all the time. As United starts to improve its product then Bush will encourage asistance to them.

PS Does anyone no if CAL got loan guaruntees when it went BK

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: The middle of the road

Typhoon--I follow your posts. You're a smart kid.

I'm honored, sir...although I haven't felt much like a "kid" since turning thirty.

You have to ask yourself, "What kind of a world do I want to live in," then make your choice.

If I thought either of the two major American political parties was capable of changing this world into one I want to live in, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's just like I said before, everyone shouts and points fingers, and nothing changes.

If you choose the middle of the road you'll get run-over.

Now be careful. One of my least favorite characteristics of Republicans is that when they can't think of anything intelligent to say, they fall back on witty "sound bites" like this one. What's next? "Better dead than Red?" (No, calm down. I'm not a communist.)

You know, now that I think about it...and I'm serious now...before joining this forum a year ago, I would have said I was a staunch Democrat. I just can't get behind a party who places the greed of major corporations ahead of human decency. But after discussing this issue with so many of you...I can now see that, although the Democrats are closer to the mark, neither party represents what I truly want for the future of this nation!

(I'm sitting here in shock, guys and gals. No joke. My membership in this open forum has fundamentally changed my political views!)

So where does that leave me in the almighty, a-constitutional two-party system? I may have to actually vote for whoever I think is more suited for the office for which they're running!

On one point, however, I refuse to budge: regardless of what anyone thinks of either party, Republicans do not have a monopoly on morality! Look me in the eye and tell me Dick Nixon was more honest than Bill Clinton. Tell me Newt Gingrich is a prince of family values. Good grief!

Okay, I'm going to try to leave this alone. Right now, it's about United...

 

[Timebuilder]

Look me in the eye and tell me Dick Nixon was more honest than Bill Clinton. Tell me Newt Gingrich is a prince of family values. Good grief!

While I don't want to rewrite the books written on Watergate or the Clinton Presidency, Nixon had the brass to step down, and show some very real contrition about the wrongdoings of the watergate burglars. Clinton looked the American people in the eye and lied, several times.

Who was a better President? That would depend on establishing the standards used to measure a Presidency. Nixon is respected for his diplomatic dialogue with the Chinese, and for his ending of the Vietnam conflict left over from the Kennedy and Johnson years. Bill Clinton is known primarily for his ability to charm, obfuscate, and have multiple partners who are not his wife, and are closer in age to his daughter than himself.

Newt Gingrich was able to articulate many values that he was unable to live. A very human failing. Just as many leaders who have better ideas than lives, he failed to lead by example. Had he been the Presidnet, this would have been much worse, since we hold our Presidents to a higher standard than pilots or Speakers of the House.

I don't think anyone EVER called him the "prince of family values", though!

 

[Caveman]

Hawker F/O (no slur intended),

You do realize that your concern about Bush during Vietnam is ironic in that it was a Democrat that got us into that mess and and a Republican that got us out.

Why is it that when someone disagrees with you they must be drinking? Like most liberals you appear unable to proffer a rational debate without turning it into a personal attack. Hence the crack about drinking and the psychobabble about me being uncomfortable as an F/O.

The government has no business bailing out failing companies unless there is a compelling national interest. IMO one large airline going in the tank doesn't meet that criteria. Unfortunate, yes, but it isn't a national crisis.

 

[patq1]

patq1, you should think a little harded about who told those pilot's to get back to work.

I did think a little harder and I also looked it up. Here is part of the AP article from the time:

"Precedent set by Clinton eliminates strike fears

NEW YORK (AP) - The word ''strike'' doesn't conjure up such scary images to the flying public anymore.

That is the precedent set by President Clinton in ordering American Airlines pilots back to work within minutes after they declared a strike early Saturday, averting chaotic disruptions to hundreds of thousands of passengers.

If pilot negotiations at four other of the nation's biggest airlines get to the brink of a walkout, airline chiefs and passengers almost certainly will be looking to the White House to keep the planes in the air.

Clinton made a hugely popular decision by effectively removing the one potent negotiating weapon in the American pilot union's arsenal. "

I didn't think my memory was that bad but thanks for making me think!

pat

 

[cocknbull]

Bush I had Eastern. Bush II has United. Maybe it's some kind of family thing.

If you're a member of a labor union (ALPA, APA, IAM, AFA, etc.) and you voted for any Republican candidate, then you're capable of a level of cognitive dissonance that I find staggering.

Typhoon1244

If you're a US citizen who pays taxes and you voted for any Democrap, then you're incapable of making sound decisions.

If you care about your company and want it to do well and you voted for a Democrat, then you made a mistake.

If you voted for a Democrat for the soul purpose of furthering union views then you are selfish.

All of this corporate greed crap came about during Slick Willie's term. Bush is the one layin down the law.

If you're uneducated, on welfare, or a college teacher who smoked alot of weed in the sixties, then you're most likely a Democrat.

You act as if Bush could have saved Eastern. Eastern was doomed the day Lorenzo landed in Miami. Lorenzo is Harvard educated. Harvard is the most Liberal school in the country. Lorenzo's tactics were not Republican or Democrat they were just wrong....... Bush Jr. would have had Lorenzo in court for insider trading after the Pan Am-National deal.

If this were 1940, I'd be a Democrat. Times have changed and so has the role of government.

 

[Soupbone]

Well said Caveman and cocknbull!!

I don't think there was an American around, including Gore that wasn't extremely happy that Bush was the President after 9/11!
Does anyone really think that Clinton was responsible for the 90's boom? Remember we had a REPUBLICAN Congress!! The last 2 years we have had a Democrap Congress and look were that got us. I think the next few years will affirm why the Republican's won back Congress this year!!
The real reason Clinton and Gore do not even measure up to Bush...Bush has 2 things they never had/have...character and integrity!

Fire away,
Soup

 

[bart]

If you have to rely on mob rule rather than your own wherewithal to further your career, then you are in trouble. If you truly have skills, and know how to use them and market them, then you have nothing to worry about. If you don't, then find a big herd to hide in, where merit is not the measure of economic reward.

The situation at UAL is not the government's fault. As an organization, UAL has made poor economic decisions that have landed it where it is today. Following the line of thinking that the government is responsible for bad decisions of its citizenry, I have some hefty stock market losses that the government owes me for.

If that idea is absurd to you, then you understand why your position is absurd to me. If you are a victim of other's decisions, maybe it is time to explore why you allowed that to happen. If your piloting skills are so **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** valuable, then it will be no problem to find another high paying flying job.

 

[chawbein]

Well written bart!! Also Timebuilder and Caveman have shared some good lines of thought.

 

[Timebuilder]

If you are referring to the runaway tech bubble, that wasn't a matter of "false accounting" so much as a very large amount of retirement investment needing a place to land, and a kind of voodoo fever about the future of the internet. No one wanted to be left behind, and many fund managers felt pressured to buy a lot of stocks so that they could show people that they weren't missing the boat, even though these companies failed to make a profit (that sounds eriely familiar, doesn't it?). Only a handful of companies survived the shake out of Tech, and those that survive today present long-term buying opportunities.

As far as general prosperity is concerned, Clinton was very fortunate that he was inheriting an economy that was groomed for expansion, and would be powered up by not only the usual cycle of business, but an unprecedented ocean of money from baby boomers getting ready for retirement.

False Accounting

The shady characters of Enron and Global Crosssing, et al, will find no safe haven from me. They should be stripped of their ill-gotten wealth, and it should be placed in a fund for those who were victimized by their crimes.

 

[TurboS7]

When I see UAL stock going at .79 cents per share I am just glad that I am on the sidelines for this one. The UAL guys have a rough road ahead of them-God speed.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Soupbone,
Get a pen out, and take some notes, because it is time for me to take you to school. Like so many others, you do not want to give Clinton credit for the longest period of sustained economic prosperity in US history. Let me lay the facts out for you, and when I am finished, you can write back all you want with your disputes, but before you do that, go look it up, because it is fact and you will save yourself some embarrasment. 1st off, how many times do you recall during the 2000 election the Republicans bringing up the economy? NOT ONCE!!! Why? WEll, they didnt want anything to do with a piece of legislation that got the economy back on its feet, and not 1 Republican was going to be fool enough to utter a word about the economy. I'll explain:
Do you remember late '93 early '94, there was an economic stimulus package that Clinton sent to Congress? Of course you don't. Well, it was a package of sweeping econimic reform that the Republicans wanted nothing to do with. Do you remember what the Dow was at that time? about 7K points less than it is now; around 3k. WEll, the vote on clinton's economic stimulus package was just about straight party line. Not one single Republican voted for it, and Al Gore went in and cast the tie breaking vote to get it passes. Clinton signed it into law shortly afterwards. After the vote, the Republicans said, "We will not be held accountable for this Democratic econimic legislation". And they were true to their word. After the reforms of the package started taking place, the market went through the roof. Record economic times, lowest unemployment in history(Peace time). Alan Greenspan said that economic package had a signifigant impact on the state of the US economy. He did not say, nor am I saying, that that one peice of legislation was the GREAT HOPE for the US economy, but it had a large part in it. It was simpl actually, pay our bills so we can spend money in other places, and that is exactly what happened. There used to be a Deficit clock in NYC I think, and they wound up turning it off in Clinton's last 2 years, because it was running so slow. I wonder if it is back on now?? Remember, When Ronald Reagan came to power, there was no deficit of significant proportion. When Bush took over from Reagan, he promised no new taxes, but had to go back on his word because Reagan had not disclosed the true size of the deficit. That wound up being the downfall of Bush I. He was trying to do the right thing, but it was too late, and James Carville kept fresh in everyone's mind, "It's the economy, Stupid!" When Bush II took over from Clinton, the was a record surplus. It is not all but gone. I understand that there are costs associated with defending our nation, but lets also remember that we have a US economy in bad shape as well.
Clinton is certainly not single handedly responsible for the great things that happened in the 90's, but he did have a lot to do with it. Clinton made some terrible mistakes, and did some things that were out right wrong, but in that, he also did some GREAT things that we all seem to forget about. When your wife has a baby, and you are able to take time off and help here around the house and with the newborn, and still be able to go back to work after all of that, and the law requires your job to still be there, who do you think made that possible? TEll me, WHO!!!! Bill Clinton. That was his legislation. The hope scholarship and lifetime learning credits on your Taxes: Who made that possible? Who put that $ back in your pocket for college fees paid???? Who, you fool? Who did that? Bill Clinton. So dont sit up there and tell me he had nothing to do with the economy. I have studied that economy in depth, and he is responsible along with some others. But make no mistake about it, not one Republican, except for Greenspan, helped in the beginning. Greenspan told Clinton that he was not going to lower interest rates until some conditions were met, and Clinton didn't fuss or agrue, he just did them, and the Republicans hated it. Now look where we are.
As for all the accounting misdeeds, Clinton tried to enact reforms, but Trent Lott would not even let the Senate discuss it. Lott is from Mississippi, as is MCI. Harvery Pitt and Clinton hated each other becasue Clinton spoke out about his BS. Pitt was then appointed head of the SEC, and look where he is now. Unemployed becasue he was still up to his old tricks. Did you forget about that. Trying to get William Sessions to run the oversight committee, when he is in just as much trouble as the rest of them.....Please.
Frank Lorenzo was a huge contributor to the RNC and Bush during the 2K elections, and if you think he is not about to do as he wants, we will revisit that when it happens.
Sorry about the mispellings, but once again, I am in a hurry.